Home » OPINION » Columns » Analysis: Tort reform is back at the Mississippi Capitol

Analysis: Tort reform is back at the Mississippi Capitol

JEFF AMY

Tort reform is back at the Mississippi Capitol.

That term is the shorthand for a yearslong, multistate campaign by business groups to reduce lawsuit verdicts. In Mississippi, it climaxed in a 2004 special legislative session in which lawmakers limited pain-and-suffering damage awards to $1 million in most lawsuits and limited such damages to $500,000 in medical malpractice cases.

In recent years, the titanic political battle had grown quiet. Republican dominance guaranteed no rollback of Mississippi’s previous changes, but there seemed to be little left on the agenda.

But business groups have something they still want — to make it harder for people to collect damages for injuries caused by a third party on business property.

In the legal world, this is called premises liability.

“It’s an easy way to get some easy money,” Ron Aldridge, executive director of the Mississippi chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said of such lawsuits.

Aldridge said businesses had originally sought changes in the 2004 package, but dropped the demand in exchange for other things they wanted.

Mississippi appeals courts have already been skeptical of people suing businesses, finding at least three times since 2002 that a business wasn’t responsible for someone else’s criminal conduct. But Aldridge and others claim some judges aren’t following those decisions, and that insurers are paying up rather than risk big verdicts, driving up insurance rates.

Supporters of the bill have repeatedly said businesses have left Mississippi because of the problem, but have yet to respond to requests by The Associated Press to identify them.

Those who want a change say current law is unfair because it’s written to prohibit judges or jurors from assigning part of the fault for an action to the criminal or other third party who performed the action. The two identical versions of what’s called the Landowners Protection Act (House Bill 337 and Senate Bill 2901 ) would change that by saying jurors or judges could divide up shares of fault.

That alone is likely to be a boon to businesses, because when someone sues a business, they can argue that most of the fault belongs to the third party who assaulted someone in a parking lot. While the business has money and insurance coverage, in many cases the individual does not. A jury decides someone suffered $100,000 in harm, but the business is at fault for only 10 percent.

But bills go further than that one change.

Most importantly, the bills say a property owner is exempt from a lawsuit unless someone can prove they “affirmatively, with a degree of conscious decision-making, impelled the conduct of said third party.” A woman who sues after being attacked in a dark parking lot without security would have to prove that the business knew about the potential harm and let it happen.

They also exempt property owners from liability even if they knew about the violent nature of the third party, and doesn’t allow a plaintiff to establish that there was an atmosphere of violence at a location unless there was similar violent conduct that resulted in three felony convictions on the property within the three prior years. So a nightclub where the police are called to break up fights but people aren’t charged and convicted of felonies could be exempt, for example, if someone was hurt there later.

Ole Miss law school Professor Farish Percy, who teaches tort law, said the bill could make it nearly impossible to prove a property owner bears any responsibility for any injury caused by a third party. That’s unlike current law, which would say a property owner is responsible if they didn’t take reasonable precautions.

“I think this is much greater protection,” Percy said Thursday.

» JEFF AMY has covered politics and government for The Associated Press in Mississippi since 2011. Follow him at http://twitter.com/jeffamy .

BEFORE YOU GO…

… we’d like to ask for your support. More people are reading the Mississippi Business Journal than ever before, but advertising revenues for all conventional media are falling fast. Unlike many, we do not use a pay wall, because we want to continue providing Mississippi’s most comprehensive business news each and every day. But that takes time, money and hard work. We do it because it is important to us … and equally important to you, if you value the flow of trustworthy news and information which have always kept America strong and free for more than 200 years.

If those who read our content will help fund it, we can continue to bring you the very best in news and information. Please consider joining us as a valued member, or if you prefer, make a one-time contribution.

Click for more info

About Associated Press

One comment

  1. The liability relief in this proposed bill does not even compare to the liability protection our State government gives itself. The Mississippi Tort Claims Act blocks all liability not arising out of an injury caused by a dangerous condition on government property unless: (A) a government employee caused the condition, or (B) the governmental entity had (i) notice of the dangerous condition and (ii) adequate opportunity to fix it or warn against it. But even then there is no liability if (iii) the dangerous condition was obvious to someone being careful. MCA Sect. 11-46-9(v)

    By contrast, a private business can be held 100% liable for damages caused by someone else if that business “should have known” there was a “dangerous” condition on its property. The private business doesn’t get the benefit of notice, an adequate time to fix or warn of the condition, or the right to claim the dangerous condition was obvious.

    Additionally, the Mississippi Tort Claim Act gives only government defendants a very short one-year statute of limitations and limits plaintiffs to a trial by a judge (not a jury of one’s peers) who, by the way, is a government employee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*